Cross-chain secret seals. New network/chain in invoices #118
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This was referenced Dec 30, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Blind UTXO ("secret seals") was not properly supporting cross-chain seal definitions. This resulted in the bug where the accepted consignment was not recognized as its own state.
The core of the fix is in RGB-WG/rgb-core#199, as well as in BP-WG/bp-core#71
This required making blind UTXOs commit to the chain. I used this as an opportunity to embed multi-chain support to RGB invoices and combine it with testnet etc indications. So now, the beneficiary in the invoice ALWAYS contains information on both network and chain, using new prefixes:
bc,tb,lq,tletc:bc:1pj6fx-pzy9gy-xl6mek-j7fxgm-h3frl5-fwulrf-lawxpt-vve6jv-h4vles-hh8wutorbc:18cBEM-RxXHqz-WWCxZN-tU91F5-sbUNKh-L5PXbc:utxob:....